In the last two posts, those have been incidents where someone has been victimized. Homosexuality is an act by two consenting adults. It is 'victimless'.
First gay protest at Speakers' Corner?You going?
- Thread starter myloplex
- Start date
- Status
to be honest; if the germans had won, it'd probably be bloody ok today.
history is written by the victors; i understand that the holocaust was a horrible thing, but we have so many horrible things done by every side - some days you wonder if there is really a concept of "right" or "wrong"; or it's simply the majority of today that counts; rather than a preformed, preconceived concept of "good" or "evil".
for example, postulate an example where tomorrow an evil dictator somehow manages to take over the entire world and retains his power with an uncanny ability to keep people in line; a hundred years later, our descendants would probably be used to all sorts of things that would be perceived to be inhumane in this time period.
just some random musings, don't mind me.
well, when we highlight moral issue; ppl tends to say who's moral? finally, a survey / report pops out, ppl started to color / distract the report with history of german, iraq, america, religion. ppl start to doubt majority and favour the minority. In mathematics term, most will look at the majority or highest number. but the ppl here are the reverse. what a mess! ppl creating a reverse logic with their own perspective.
just like black & white color, some say 'white are good' and some say 'black is better' . in this case, nobody is better. like us, in this thread.
in addition, ppl insist that those going against them, are reading and quoting results that is favourable. well, the report is there for u to read; see if u can find anything that u like and post it up for us to analyze. i done my part, now you do yours.
ppl are telling opposing ppl to be open-minded. however, for those who claim that they are 'open-minded'; be more 'OPEN-MINDED' to ppl who can't accept this practices! Yes / No. Go thru the thread again, put yourself in other person's shoe (opposition group) and try to understand their situation.
I would say u guys came into this thread with a narrow-minded view on those against this practise. Simiarly, we came into this thread with our own view; which is also narrow-minded as claimed by some of the guys here. nobody wins
likewise, when someone say, disowning their sons if they're ... , it doesn't mean they will do that. it's a a statement that highlight their sentiment against this topic!
saying more will hurt both parties!
一种米养 百种人
that's it
just like black & white color, some say 'white are good' and some say 'black is better' . in this case, nobody is better. like us, in this thread.
in addition, ppl insist that those going against them, are reading and quoting results that is favourable. well, the report is there for u to read; see if u can find anything that u like and post it up for us to analyze. i done my part, now you do yours.
ppl are telling opposing ppl to be open-minded. however, for those who claim that they are 'open-minded'; be more 'OPEN-MINDED' to ppl who can't accept this practices! Yes / No. Go thru the thread again, put yourself in other person's shoe (opposition group) and try to understand their situation.
I would say u guys came into this thread with a narrow-minded view on those against this practise. Simiarly, we came into this thread with our own view; which is also narrow-minded as claimed by some of the guys here. nobody wins
likewise, when someone say, disowning their sons if they're ... , it doesn't mean they will do that. it's a a statement that highlight their sentiment against this topic!
saying more will hurt both parties!
一种米养 百种人
that's it
Last edited:
While many studies trying to establish a relationship between homosexuality and genetics have thus far been inconclusive, it is still possible that genetics plays a role in sexuality, since the lack of conclusive evidence to support a thesis does not constitute evidence to disprove it.
Note that I'm not so much as debating the morality of homosexuality, but merely presenting a logical train of thought that allows society to have the cake and eat it at the same time.
Consider this alternative (pragmatic) approach which is highly simplified for the sake of illustration:
'afflicted' as is used simply refers to the condition of having said mutation and carries no negative connotation.
This would have the societal effects of:
Moreover, the approach would also have logical benefits:
Either way, we a a few steps closer to understanding the phenomenon and thence either coming to its acceptance or working towards a solution.
However, homosexuality might have other causes, such as upbringing and environmental stimulus, in addition to genetics. It is highly unlikely that genetics is the sole cause of 100% of homosexual predispositions. But in this case, given that genetics (or the lack of 'choice') has been eliminated, conservatives can then argue that homosexuality is a 'disorder' that can be treated, provided the individual consents - that being an entirely separate issue altogether.
Once again, I must stress that I'm neither for nor against the notion, so don't flame me for being homophobic (or the converse). I'm just presenting an argument which may yet be deemed flawed.
EDIT: additions.
Note that I'm not so much as debating the morality of homosexuality, but merely presenting a logical train of thought that allows society to have the cake and eat it at the same time.
Consider this alternative (pragmatic) approach which is highly simplified for the sake of illustration:
- First, assume that homosexuality is an atypicality rooted solely in genetics that developed as a result of a mutation.
- But homosexuality, as an atypical predisposition, discourages afflicted members of a population from copulating and procreating.
- Then through the process of natural selection the mutation should die out without being passed on to offspring.
- But social norms and expectations intervened in natural selection, by compelling afflicted members to procreate.
- Therefore the mutation still exists in a population today.
- Assume also, that as a result of current social norms, all homosexuals are compelled to procreate and they get married and have children.
- Then the associated genetic mutation will stand a chance to be passed on to offspring, and thus spread to affect a larger number, both in absolute figures and proportionately, of members in a given population.
- Suppose however, we change said social norms to allow homosexuals to follow their predispositions.
- Then afflicted individuals will choose not to procreate, and natural selection will follow its course. The genetic atypicality would end at that generation and the phenomenon of homosexuality will subside, at least until a similar mutation occurs again.
'afflicted' as is used simply refers to the condition of having said mutation and carries no negative connotation.
This would have the societal effects of:
- Affording homosexuals basic civil liberties and upholding the principles of democracy in the short run.
- Addressing the opinion of conservatives by eliminating the problem in the long run.
Moreover, the approach would also have logical benefits:
- If the gene is eliminated, and the phenomenon ceases to exist, then in retrospect, a particular camp would have been correct - but it wouldn't matter.
- If on the other hand the gene is eliminated, but the phenomenon still exists, then we can still conclude that the phenomenon is either partly genetic, or entirely social.
Either way, we a a few steps closer to understanding the phenomenon and thence either coming to its acceptance or working towards a solution.
However, homosexuality might have other causes, such as upbringing and environmental stimulus, in addition to genetics. It is highly unlikely that genetics is the sole cause of 100% of homosexual predispositions. But in this case, given that genetics (or the lack of 'choice') has been eliminated, conservatives can then argue that homosexuality is a 'disorder' that can be treated, provided the individual consents - that being an entirely separate issue altogether.
Once again, I must stress that I'm neither for nor against the notion, so don't flame me for being homophobic (or the converse). I'm just presenting an argument which may yet be deemed flawed.
EDIT: additions.
Last edited:
I think you misunderstood Kusum Kangguru; he was actually implying that being in the majority doesn't automatically make you correct.
But don't you think it's hard to be a credible voice if you have no conviction to what you say?
my apologies for not making it clear. I understand his point. I was actually linking to support his statement that being in the majority doesn't mean you are right as history has shown.
Dudes, consider this:
The percentage of homosexuals is max about 7% of any given population. Singapore's likely to be lower. Yet last year in Singapore, of all new cases of aids transmitted through sexual intercourse, 1/3 are from homosexual intercourse.
What does this say about the sexual lifestyle of homosexuals?
The percentage of homosexuals is max about 7% of any given population. Singapore's likely to be lower. Yet last year in Singapore, of all new cases of aids transmitted through sexual intercourse, 1/3 are from homosexual intercourse.
What does this say about the sexual lifestyle of homosexuals?
firstly, i question your figures
what makes you so certain that it is "max 7%" of any given population; and please quote sources when you use figures, else i can pull figures out of my butthole too.
secondly; even if what you say is true, my next question is: so what?
I think the myth about HIV is that it's a gay disease. Homosexuals are the ones spreading it, they are the sinners...
Actually figures have shown that... the reasons why the figures show 1/3 of the cases are from homosexual intercourse are because homosexuals are the ones who are more willing to undergo testing.
Many heterosexuals engage in unsafe practices such as commercial sex locally and overseas. Just look at something boy .com.... all the "field" reports of exploits of our great heterosexual friends.... who revel in screwing around in every city they go. Our uncles who go to Batam and practise unprotected sex... thinking hiya "Young girls.... below 16.... sure clean one!"
The worse thing is many heterosexuals don't go for HIV testing.... reasons being "it's a gay disease... I never f men.... I wont kanna one"
The thing is you will get it... even though you are heterosexual. And why do you think the govt keeps telling us to go for tests and suggesting that hospitals test their patients. Cos honestly I can tell you the true number of HIV victims in Singapore is just be the tip of the ice berg among the heterosexual community and our govt knows many are slipping under the radar. If the real number of heterosexual HIV victims can be known. I assure you homosexuals will be less than 1/3 of the total percent.
So please don't do a smear campaign against Homosexuals and use HIV as the excuse that they are this and that.... It's just plain paranoid and ignorance.
Last edited:
:bsmilie::bsmilie:
Dude, firstly 7% is from wiki. It quoted 2%-7%.
The 1/3 is a rough estimate from moh website. Go verify the sources yourself.
@aeskywan
i never said HIV is a gay disease. This never crossed my mind until you said it. I merely quoted figures from sources that are reasonably reliable.
But you raised a good point. Not all aids sufferers go for checkup. Lets see what this gives us:
We make certain assumptions skewed to help debunk the gay disease myth.
Assume percentage of homosexuals is 7% in sg. This is very likely on the high side.
Using '07 figures:
130 got infected through homosexual intercourse.
255 got infected through heterosexual intercourse.
15 got infected through bixsexual intercourse.
Bisexual means the people could have gotten aids through normal or same-sex intercourse, but we assume they got it through normal intercourse and do not group them as homosexuals.
Estimates also state for every new infection, 2-4 goes undetected. But lets assume here 100% of infected homosexuals are detected while 4 infected heterosexuals goes undetected, making the number of infected heterosexuals increase by a factor of 5.
Therefore percentage of infected homosexuals to total infected is:
130/( 5(255) + 130 + 15) * 100 = 9%
Which, after all the generous assumptions, is still greater than your 7%.
Using these same assumptions,
In '06 it is 7.7%
In '05 it is 8.5%
In '04 it is 6.9% <- at last close to your 7%
Lets return to official figures.
The 1/3 figure, as quoted in the press recently, is likely 130/(255+130+15) = 32.5%.
As for your 2nd qn, nightmare, oh i don't know.
I mean, if you take up 7% of the population, you should account for 7% the relative infection rate, but the fact is if your relative infection rate is over 4 times that, well....what do you think we should do?
:think: i'm not going to contribute to the debate, but i'm sorry, in academic and even business research, wikipedia does NOT constitute a credible source of information.
:bsmilie: true that
i quote my friend's status on facebook though;
"XXX just donated USD10 to Wikipedia. Without Wikipedia, he would never be able to graduate."
What abt the drug addicts and children who got infected when they were inside their mother's womb?
I have a friend who is a global AIDS activist. I shall ask her what she thinks of the statistics/claims.
Last edited:
You said it with your sweeping statement "what does this say about the sexual habits of homosexuals"
Before we go any further, are you saying that homosexuals deserve to be discriminated against because they are assumed to be more likely to have AIDS?
i wish we could be wrong sometimes, that such threads always end up being closed.
but.. we are always right.
but.. we are always right.
- Status
Similar threads
